is a personal injury firm serving Indianapolis. Welcome to our legal blog, where we will share more educational content soon.
Firm News
Second Circuit: Failure to Obtain Consent of All Served Defendants to Removal Cannot be Cured After Deadline for Removal
In prior discussions, we’ve touched on the topics of federal jurisdiction and on removing putative class actions from state court to federal court. We have not, however, dedicated much time to talking about the process of removal in general. Last week, the Second Circuit handed down its decision in that provides us such an opportunity. Before we delve into Taylor…
Indiana Court of Appeals Examines Nuance of Medical Malpractice Proceedings Concerning Claims on Behalf of Deceased Persons
The question of who is the right person or entity to bring a claim can be a complicated issue. Take, for example, claims under the Indiana Wrongful Death Statutes. If the claim arises under the General or Adult Wrongful Death Statutes, then an estate must be opened on behalf of the statutory beneficiaries of the decedent. If, however, the claim…
Indiana Supreme Court Adopts Expansive Interpretation of “Patient” as Used in the Medical Malpractice Act
A little more than a month ago, we briefly noted that the Indiana Supreme Court had accepted two certified questions from the Seventh Circuit that sought to explore the meaning of “Patient” as applied in the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. Today, we examine the Indiana Supreme Court’s answer to one of the questions and consider whether the concurring opinion should…
Seventh Circuit: Even One Stateless Partner to a Partnership Defeats Diversity Jurisdiction
Over the last decade on the Hoosier Litigation Blog, the perennial champion for most-read post has been Federal Diversity Jurisdiction and the “Gaping Hole Problem”. At the core of that discussion is the statute that establishes diversity jurisdiction in federal courts: 28 U.S.C. § 1332. It has long been my belief that the post was as heavily trafficked as it…
Seventh Circuit Examines Effect of Failing to Timely File Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment
We have discussed the nuances of the governing standards for summary judgment in both Indiana and federal courts. We have even examined the propriety of filing a reply brief in support of summary judgment within an Indiana state court. We have not, however, addressed what happens when a party fails to timely respond to a motion for summary judgment. Courtesy…
Indiana Court of Appeals Reminds that Bars are Liable for Foreseeable Attacks on Patrons by Other Patrons
Today, we once more travel the increasingly well-worn path of examining the question of when a business proprietor owes a duty to patrons to prevent harm caused by activities on the premises. We last discussed the topic following the Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion in Cavanaugh’s Sports Bar & Eatery, Ltd. v. Porterfield. The primary question in this area of law…
Seventh Circuit Recognizes Reckless Driving by Police Can Violate Fourteenth Amendment and Reinstates Failure-to-Train Monell Claim
Today, we focus primarily on an opinion handed down last week by the Seventh Circuit in Flores v. City of South Bend, which provided tremendous insight into the question of when may a police department be held liable for the utterly reckless conduct of an officer who causes an automobile wreck by unnecessarily driving at break-neck speeds down urban streets.…
Indiana Supreme Court Reminds of Obligation to Timely File Notice of Appeal After Interlocutory Appeal Accepted
This week, we take a quick peek at an aspect of Indiana appellate procedure that is easy to overlook but can completely short circuit an appeal. As we’ve discussed, there are two basic types of appeals in Indiana: appeals from final judgments and interlocutory appeals. For today, we focus on the procedure for bringing an interlocutory appeal. Those procedures are…
Is Administrative Feasibility a Requirement for Class Certification? Eleventh Circuit says, ‘No’
Last week, we discussed the numerosity requirement embodied in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1) as the initial requirement for class certification. Numerosity, like commonality, typicality, and adequacy, is a requirement explicit in Rule 23(a). No matter what the type of class action, the four requirements of Rule 23(a) must be satisfied. As we previously addressed, once they are satisfied,…